This spurious exercise in character assassination by association is funded by the Heartland Institute, a right-wing agitprop mill which spread a lot of Philip Morris's propaganda back in the days when the tobacco giant was disputing the science which documents the health hazards of second-hand smoke.

Guilt by association can be a dangerous game for an outfit whose BFF used to be the world's biggest drug pusher.

The Institute keeps its sources of funding secret, but Exxon-Mobil is known to have kicked in at least $800,000 between '98 and '05, and the omnipresent shadow of the Koch Brothers is discernible in the deep background.

Lots of information on this creepy organization and the creeps whose water they carry is in the Wikipedia article, s.v. Heartland Institute. I know of no other individual piece of evidence as telling as this particular history to support the charge that reactionary ideology in the US today is completely driven by big bucks.

If you already know something and want some citations, WKI has citations at the end of most articles It is also a good starting point for find material related to a subject or even to find out about a subject.

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon

Using Wikki as a source is about as reliable as using the National Enquirer.

No, it is not. Studies have demonstrated that Wikipedia is just as accurate, and sometimes even more accurate, than the Encyclopedia Britannica. (This is something that teachers learn during inservices. And yes, I once thought as you did about Wikipedia, until I learned the results of the research.) The problem with using Wikipedia as a secondary source is that it is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are the least authoritative of secondary sources, primarily because they provide general knowledge. The hierarchy of secondary sources, starting with the least authoritative sources that provide general knowledge and ending with the most authoritative sources that provide specialized knowledge, is as follows: a) encyclopedias and websites, b) general-interest magazines and newspapers, c) specialized magazines, d) trade books, e) government documents, f) academic journals, and g) scholarly books, usually published by university presses. So if you really want to use a secondary source that has the most authority, you would want to cite a scholarly book published by a university press. But here on Beliefnet, citing an encyclopedia like Wikipedia or the Encyclopedia Britannica is just fine.

If you look at the portion of the Wikipedia article entitled "Funding," what you see is a rogues' gallery of this country's looter elite. Except for the "anonymous" donators who don't want their names associated with Heartland's looter-class propaganda, and for good reason.

Follow the money, and it will lead you to the gangsters' hideout.

The last I heard about this (yesterday), the "libertarian research center" is pulling these billboards, which got a bad reception even among some of the people who ordinarily gang with this wingnut agitprop cell.

And no wonder, since the argument they're making here is ridiculous. Kaczynski, being a mathematician, also believes 2 + 2 = 4. Does that mean that anyone who believes the same thing is a mad bomber?